Brooke Baldwin, CNN and Boobies: Who Really Demeans Women?

Clay Travis said that he liked boobs during a live TV segment on CNN. Anchorwoman Brooke Baldwin then cut off his mic, choosing to end the interview. Baldwin later issued a statement expressing shock and disbelief that a man could say that in 2017 and that it was demeaning to women.

Sure, the remark was juvenile and inappropriate in that conversation, but it didn’t demean women. That is, he didn’t reduce women to their breasts or treat women as objects – he only glorified a female bodily part. And what he said is true: boobs are pretty awesome. They’re so awesome, in fact, that both men and women can’t seem to stop staring at them. That’s a fact. Sure, we might have different reasons for our gaze, but gaze we most certainly do. I’d even bet that your eyes, reader, darted off this paragraph several times, checking out the boob-age to the right. It is like a tractor beam – I know.

But if we are looking for a truer source for the degradation of women, look to women themselves. I mean, where is the modesty? For example, women used to only wear dresses extended to their calves, but now women wear dresses so short that we can nearly see their labia. And the dresses gets shorter and shorter every year. Sad. Their cleavage? It’s showing half the time, even in professional settings, which is ridiculous and salacious. It’s like they’re daring men to motorboat them during a staff meeting. Seriously. And finally, those jean shorts currently in fashion? Ladies: I CAN LITERALLY SEE YOUR ASS CHEEKS. They’re worse than those yoga pants that lie about how nicely shaped your ass is. Misleading AF, btw!

Seriously though, when women dress like that, it becomes harder to see them in their dignity and as a person. That’s a fact. There’s a study about it, actually. I am sure that men have some blame for this, but so do women, because women thingify themselves, highlighting and flaunting their material qualities over their immaterial virtues and femininity. Women thus objectify themselves.

Rather than suffer that consequence, women should dress and act modestly. That way, women help foster a culture and a masculinity that is not obsessed with boobs and ass, where men value women for their femininity. This is not about hiding yourselves, ladies. It’s about understanding and appreciating the fact that we are a sort of animal, one that can be easily ruled by his or her passions rather than rationality; hence, when we dress and act modestly, we don’t hide ourselves, no. In fact, it is quite the opposite: we take effort to reveal and ensure our dignity and status as persons.

So, ladies, if you want to help men become better, and even better yourselves, here’s some advice. Cover up some more. Keep your virginity until marriage. Do all the stuff that women used to do before, the pornification of society, feminism and the sexualization of women and girls. Men will follow cue. I assure you – we will. But first you need to act and dress like ladies. That is your debt to chivalrous men. Otherwise, you don’t get to balk when men say “I like boobies”, for that is the sort of degeneracy you encourage with your self-objectification and denigration of womanhood.

13 Comments

  1. So carnal, man.

    You can’t expect “liberals” to take your screeds against homosexuality and transgenderism and other forms of sexual immorality seriously, when you haven’t yet plucked out your own eye of the flesh.

    Stop being a hypocrite and you might get better results, because your words will have some authority behind them.

    • TSI is simply pointing out the obvious fact that you’re a blind guide of the blind, hence you both end up in the selfsame ditch.

      Your suggestions are carnal, meaning of the flesh, which is no help at all (John 6:63). The issue is spiritual, hence the need is spiritual, but since the false religion of Rome is Ichabod, all your denomination can offer is outward forms of legalism (Col. 2:20-23).

      Actual Christians aren’t surprised when the world acts like the world, that’s just what sinners who are outside Christ do. They need new life to be graciously granted by Christ so that they are changed from the inside out into conformity with Him, and so love the things God loves and hate the things God hates.

      You can experience this new life too, Catholic Hulk. Please consider the Christ of Scripture.

    • CRD,

      “Actual Christians…”? Really? Are the doctrinal differences between Protestants and Catholics that great?

      Scripture also enjoins us to “be fruitful and…multiply” (Genesis 9:7) and boasts such salacious prose as “Your breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle” (Song of Solomon 7:3) and “A loving doe, a graceful deer — may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love” (Proverbs 5:19).

      You guys are drawing inferences about the state of a person’s soul and character based on some sophomoric GIFs embedded in the text of a blog post, a medium known for its rhetorical embellishment and jocularity.

    • @Jan – yes, the doctrinal differences between Romanism and Biblical Christianity *really are* that great. So great in fact that one can only conclude that the Romanist religion is a different faith than that which is set forth in Scripture (the 66 books of the Holy Bible).

      My inferences on the state of Catholic Hulk’s soul aren’t based on the contents of this post, they’re based on his profession of faith in a false religious system. His various posts and comments on this blog are merely additional evidence of his lost spiritual condition.

      And defending Hulk’s deranged screed by comparing it to inspired Scripture seems like a grotesque straw man to me.

    • CRD,

      “Deranged screed”? He’s arguing for modesty and chastity, which regardless of differences between Protestants and Catholics, Christians of all sorts find to be good things. You might take issue with the GIFs and the rhetorical style Hulk employs, as TSI does, finding it counterproductive like shooting yourself in the foot, but I think it’s grossly uncharitable to describe Hulk’s post as carnal and “of the flesh.” He’s pointing out that humans are fixated on breasts and sex. But his pointing to it does not mean he’s relishing in that fixation. In fact, he expresses disappointment in how sex-obsessed we’ve become, mentioning how immodest and frankly slutty the apparel and fashions of women have become.

      I cited the Bible because sexuality qua sexuality is not evil or depraved according to it. Sure, there are rules about sexuality, but it’s a gift from God. Breasts qua breasts are not bad according to Christian doctrinal sources of authority. Here’s a couple verses from the Good Book that show that.

      As such, I’m not sure I’m guilty of a straw man against anyone: I’m not arguing against Hulk, nor was I misrepresenting him and criticizing him by a misrepresentation. I was criticizing your comment in which I detected prudery that I felt was based in a misunderstanding of Scripture, and I responded accordingly. If this is not your position when it comes to Christianity and sexuality, I apologize and ask then what is it? Furthermore, I made no comparison between Hulk’s post and the Bible, but even if I had, that would not suffice as a straw man against you.

  2. Many of the comments you make are lewd and coarse–they aren’t the kinds of remarks one should expect of a true Christian. Aside from some of the particular remarks being in bad taste, there is also the fact that you say–and delight in the fact–that you think everyone’s gaze will be drawn to a woman’s breasts. But I don’t really think that’s funny, and I certainly don’t see why a professing believer should think that it is. I know the Lord himself surely didn’t. He said that those who commit adultery in their hearts will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and he commanded everyone with a lustful eye and a filthy mind or a foul mouth to purge themselves of such things.

    I don’t see how making posts like this help the cause of conservatism (or Christianity).

    There is indeed a real contradiction and hypocrisy that you are right to highlight in our society, namely, that our culture wants things both ways: on the one hand, we blame men for objectivizing women and claim that it is is bad when they do so, and yet on the other hand, women themselves often objectivize themselves and sometimes even get angry when they are told that it is wrong to do so.

    But you negate that reasonable observation by exhibiting the same kind of carnality you’re writing against. How are you entitled to write about female modesty when you have a filthy mind and wandering eye? Fulfill your own obedience, and then you have the right to speak out against what you see.

    It’s hypocrisy like this that gives other sinners an easy excuse to reject what they think is Christianity, when they see it being represented by someone who is drowning in hypocrisy. If you want to claim the name of Christ, you should do what he commands, by plucking out your own lustful eye, purifying your own mind, and living a life of self-control. Be serious yourself about these matters rather than using them as cheap fodder for blog humor.

    Then others will listen to what you have to say. Or at the very least, your hypocrisy won’t give them a convenient excuse for tuning you out.

    • Well, thanks for the explanation. I can’t say that I agree with much of it, though I agree that I can have a crass mouth.

      Regarding gaze, I only remarked that I bet the reader will have looked a few times (it’s not always something we’re conscious about). I didn’t say everyone will look.

      Do I think it’s a good thing? Well, for men, it’s healthy and a sign of vitality. I don’t see anything bad with looking, because looking and appreciating is not in itself lustful. Rather lust obtains in the entertainment of unchaste thoughts or imagining unchaste scenarios. So for example, I can look and appreciate a woman’s butt, but I don’t imagine myself having sex with her or grabbing her butt, and so forth. This is totally permissible within catholic thinking. It’s not filthy.

      So I think we have a disagreement about what lust constitutes.

  3. News flash: men like breasts. On a second note, it’s funny to see CRD trash two thousand years of Christian tradition because he thinks his own personal interpretation of scripture is the true one. Good to know CRD is an infallible interpreter.

    • Very clever Urban II, good to know you’re a typical unthinking, knee-jerk papist lapdog.

      Notice how Urban II can’t think outside of his *authoritative-infallible-interpreter* paradigm. Like Romanists generally, he suffers from tunnel vision as he obsessively recasts the subject of the understanding Scripture in terms of “infallible interpretation” rather than truth or evidence. Why does an interpretation of Scripture need to be “infallible” rather than true? Put another way, why isn’t truth inherently infallible? 

      Urban II and Catholic Hulk, like all good Romanists, simply move the question back one step, but never explain how they sidestep the question of private interpretation in the first place when they decided to let the Roman Magisterium and papacy decide for them. They just punt the ball to Rome. Rome has the “authority” to decide, to determine. It just does. That’s just the way it is.

      But the relevant question when it comes to the meaning of Scripture shouldn’t be “who has the authority to determine X”, but whether the statement is true, and whether we can assess the truth or falsity of the statement by available evidence. By what “authority” did Urban II decide to become a Romanist? By Magisterial authority? At the beginning stages of his investigations and reflections into Romanism was he already convinced of the truth claims of Rome? Was he born believing? Or at some point did he have to *gasp* exercise his private judgment?

      In Urban II’s personal, fallible opinion, the church of Rome is the One True Church®. LOL! You altar boys are such a rich mine of contradictory nonsense.

      It’s also funny that Urban II should mention “two thousand years of Christian tradition” as if Rome owns that, too. If any rational person paid any attention to the past two thousand years of church history then he wouldn’t be a Roman Catholic.

      But for Romanists like Urban II (and apparently Catholic Hulk), their reference point isn’t the empirical Roman Catholic church. The object of their faith isn’t the Catholic church as it actually presents itself in the course of history. Not an audible, visible, verifiable organization, but the church as it exists in their minds. The Roman church as an idealized mental construct. The Roman church as a philosophical solution to what they perceive to be the philosophical problem of Protestant (or other some other competing) epistemology. They aren’t Roman Catholics based on evidence for Catholicism. Rather, they’re Romanists despite evidence to the contrary. They’re captivated by a pristine idea that magically transcends the numerous zigzag contradictions of Catholic history.

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)